Ignorance of the existence or applicability of workers' compensation rights, without more, does not constitute either 'reasonable cause' or 'mistake' within the meaning of s 25(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act (NT). For there to be a 'mistake', the worker must have applied their mind to the question of the application of the law to the facts and misconceived their true position; mere passivity of thought or absence of any conception of the matter is ignorance, not mistake. A hope of recovery may constitute reasonable cause for failure to give notice where the injury appears trivial, but not where the worker knows the injury is serious and the hope is based on nothing other than hope. Dietrich v Dare (1978) 21 ALR 210 should not be followed on the point that ignorance of procedural requirements constitutes 'mistake'.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 32 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 32 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.